People v. Di Matteo
| Citation | 80 Misc.2d 1029,365 N.Y.S.2d 126 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Robert DI MATTEO et al., Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1975 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
George McVay, Asst. Dist. Atty., Richmond County, Staten Island, for the People.
Anthony J. Crecca, Staten Island, for defendants.
In this prosecution of 3 co-defendants for bribery of a public servant (Penal Law, Sec. 200.00), the defendants move for an audibility hearing of a tape recording made of a conversation or conversations of one or more of defendants, either made with a law enforcement officer, or overheard by said official.
Motion is granted. The People shall permit the defendants and their attorney to hear such recording or recordings not less than 10 days before trial, and also have scientific tests performed as to the integrity of such tape or tapes. Furthermore, the People shall furnish defendants' attorney with a transcript of the contents of such tape or tapes not less than 15 days before trial.
The Court strongly believes that justice can best be served, and the rights of a defendant best protected, by permitting a defendant the fullest disclosure possible within the framework of statutory and decisional law.
With reference to the within motion, the Court takes the position that the extent of a defendant's right to disclosure prior to trial of the contents of any recorded statements he made to, or conversations he had with, law enforcement officers, does not depend on whether the People intend to use such material on its direct case, or for the purpose of impeachment. The argument that such disclosure permits a defendant to 'slant' or 'tailor' his defense, sometimes advanced by prosecutors, is specious. The People have unlimited access to such recorded conversations in its possession, and undoubtedly prepare its case to obtain the maximum favorable inferences from the use of such material at the trial. Under our concept of 'equal justice for all', a defendant should be afforded no less an opportunity to peruse and use such material for his benefit.
In this regard, the Court does not believe that its determination in anyway conflicts with the holding in Harris v. New York (401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1). In Harris, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant who takes the stand may be impeached by a prior inconsistent statement, even though such statement was inadmissible in the State's case in chief ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rivera
...the audibility hearing at bar. Defendant's reliance on People v. Shields, 82 Misc.2d 275, 368 N.Y.S.2d 144, and People v. DiMatteo, 80 Misc.2d 1029, 365 N.Y.S.2d 126, is also inapposite; although audibility "hearings" were mentioned in each case, the real issue was pretrial disclosure to de......
-
People v. Green
...list of the names and addresses of the People's witnesses. This constitutes the order and opinion of the court. * See People v. Di Matteo, 80 Misc.2d 1029, 365 N.Y.S.2d 126 (Sup.Ct., Richmond County, 1975); People v. Privitera, 80 Misc.2d 344, 363 N.Y.S.2d 226 (County Ct., Monroe County, 19......
-
People v. Rao
...of justice would afford the People a tactical advantage at the trial based upon its own prior misconduct (see People v. DiMatteo, 80 Misc.2d 1029, 1031, 365 N.Y.S.2d 126, 128). Opinion As a further basis for dismissing the indictments, Mr. Justice Murtagh said that, on numerous occasions, t......
-
People v. Christie
...advantage by the surprise use of the defendant's own words to discredit or convict him. (See e.g., People v. DiMatteo, 80 Misc.2d 1029, 1031, 365 N.Y.S.2d 126 [Sup.Ct.Rich.Co.1975] ). The possibility of tactical advantage is not, however, the determining factor, since not every statement th......